Cotham Hill opening to non-motorists

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

Be careful what you wish for. 

The problem with Bristol City Council (not my name for them) seems to be, as far as I can tell, that unless you walk or cycle they couldn't give a **** and simply wish to make life hell for motorists: if BCC^» (Bristol City Council - about) (or, as I call them, BSC) fail to heed that then that is their stupidity.

Dave

So to be clear, should Bristol City Council (BCC) heed the motorists who wish to rat-run through the area, contributing nothing, or should it heed the rate-paying business owners who requested this change?

Whenever I've spoken to Bristol City Council (BCC) officers, I've found them to be many things, but never stupid. They have to balance conflicting requirements, including central government mandates on air quality and active travel. If they don't comply, they'll be fined.

Edit:VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

[Bmblbzzz]

If you think Bristol City Council (BCC^» (Bristol City Council - about)) under Marvin Rees wish to make life hell for motorists, then Paris under Hidalgo must be the very fiery inferno.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

[Red Squirrel]

If you think Bristol City Council (BCC^» (Bristol City Council - about)) under Marvin Rees wish to make life hell for motorists, then Paris under Hidalgo must be the very fiery inferno.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

These are interesting times. There's such a gulf between people who vaguely recognise that somebody somewhere should probably do something about air pollution and the climate emergency, and those who've been given the job of developing policies. At a recent WECA^» (West of England Combined Authority - about) presentation, BCC's Head of Transport stated that motor traffic levels need to reduce to 20% of current levels by 2030. That's not a typo, he didn't say reduce by 20%, but to 20%. For most people this will mean making some fairly large adjustments, but anyone who understands the challenges we face ought to be prepared to do that!

[DaveHarries]

If you think Bristol City Council (BCC^» (Bristol City Council - about)) under Marvin Rees wish to make life hell for motorists, then Paris under Hidalgo must be the very fiery inferno.

Edit: VickiS - Clarifying Acronyms

These are interesting times. There's such a gulf between people who vaguely recognise that somebody somewhere should probably do something about air pollution and the climate emergency, and those who've been given the job of developing policies. At a recent WECA^» (West of England Combined Authority - about) presentation, BCC's Head of Transport stated that motor traffic levels need to reduce to 20% of current levels by 2030. That's not a typo, he didn't say reduce by 20%, but to 20%. For most people this will mean making some fairly large adjustments, but anyone who understands the challenges we face ought to be prepared to do that!

All very well what people want to happen. The problem, of course, is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink it. Pollution levels will only reduce to anywhere approaching that if a viable alternative is provided but walking and cycling won't suit everyone.

Dave

[ellendune]

All very well what people want to happen. The problem, of course, is that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink it. Pollution levels will only reduce to anywhere approaching that if a viable alternative is provided but walking and cycling won't suit everyone.

Yes walking and cycling will help many for some journeys, but for others good pollution free and carbon free public transport is required first.  Trouble is the reliability and speed of bus services can only improve if there is less traffic congestion on their routes.  Chicken and Egg.

I know people who commute very long distances is that sustainable, do the people need to move or the jobs? Or can enough people work from home?

We may also need to adjust in other ways.  There is a concept of a 15 minute city - where everything for daily life is available within a 15 minute walk, shopping health, schools and work. Not sure how realistic that is, but we can get closer than we are now. 

[Chris from Nailsea]

...I have to drive my delivery van there...

I must admit I thought Bristol City Council (BCC^» (Bristol City Council - about)) had been rather clever here, leaving an access route via Hampton Park and Hampton Lane so that anyone needing to get to, rather than through, the area can still do so.

But your mileage, as they say Chris, may vary! Do these schemes make it harder for delivery drivers?

Red Squirrel (if I may refer to you here by your full name): have you ever tried to drive a Mercedes Sprinter delivery van along Hampton Lane - and turn left at the end? 

I think Chris from Nailsea has summed it up quite well.

Well, thank you very much! 

[Red Squirrel]

Red Squirrel (if I may refer to you here by your full name): have you ever tried to drive a Mercedes Sprinter delivery van along Hampton Lane - and turn left at the end? 

It's a fair question. Actually I'm not very good at driving vans; last time I hired one (which was a Sprinter, as I remember it) I ended up having to pay £400 to get the dents knocked out. So I'm probably not the best person to ask!

In my experience, the main problem on Hampton Lane is bins; the left turn at the end could presumably be eased by removing a parking bay. With all these schemes, the devil is in the detail - which presumably will emerge shortly, one way or another.

For completeness, here is the report on the BCC^» (Bristol City Council - about) consultation: https://bristol.citizenspace.com/sustainable-transport/cotham-hill-engagement-survey/user_uploads/cotham-hill-early-engagement-report.pdf

[Noggin]

Like it or not, for most people a vehicle is an essential part of life in Bristol, particularly if you are disabled, have children, parents who live in the countryside, work shifts or off the beaten track, have a hobby or a business where you need to ferry gear around etc

That said, there are plenty of trips, particularly commutes, for which a train/bike/walk/bus is great, and there's a lot that can be done to encourage that. I live 15 minutes walk from Temple Meads and even pre-Covid, we'd probably only use the car between us a 5 or 6 times a week, but without one, my wife couldn't easily get to her job as a teacher without it, we couldn't take kids to swimming lessons, take stuff to the tip, visit her family etc.   

Ultimately there needs to be a balance that sees car use as valid and integrates it, but in such a way that people can safely walk and cycle around the city and that it doesn't get in the way of public transport.

If you ban cars completely from the city, then you'll just end up exiling the people who want/need to own cars to the countryside or outer suburbs, where they will drive everywhere, shop, eat and play in chain stores etc. Cities will be all the poorer for it.

[Lee]

Like it or not, for most people a vehicle is an essential part of life in Bristol, particularly if you are disabled, have children, parents who live in the countryside, work shifts or off the beaten track, have a hobby or a business where you need to ferry gear around etc

That said, there are plenty of trips, particularly commutes, for which a train/bike/walk/bus is great, and there's a lot that can be done to encourage that. I live 15 minutes walk from Temple Meads and even pre-Covid, we'd probably only use the car between us a 5 or 6 times a week, but without one, my wife couldn't easily get to her job as a teacher without it, we couldn't take kids to swimming lessons, take stuff to the tip, visit her family etc.   

Ultimately there needs to be a balance that sees car use as valid and integrates it, but in such a way that people can safely walk and cycle around the city and that it doesn't get in the way of public transport.

If you ban cars completely from the city, then you'll just end up exiling the people who want/need to own cars to the countryside or outer suburbs, where they will drive everywhere, shop, eat and play in chain stores etc. Cities will be all the poorer for it.

Couldn't agree more with the above - That is exactly what we try and encourage over here. Quote from the Saint Brieuc Urban Travel Plan:

"Our territory is attractive, constantly evolving with new housing and new activities taking hold: The need for travel (whether on foot, by bicycle, by public transport or by car) is increasing. Air quality has been affected, with recent years, a deterioration which shows the need to change mobility practices.

Many objectives are to be achieved, including:
- Guaranteeing good accessibility for everyone and the safety of everyone when traveling;
- Preserve the environment and improve the living environment;
- Foster coherence between urbanization and travel offer.

The general objective of this project is not to demonize the car, but to ensure that the use of it is neither exclusive nor an obstacle to the practice of other modes of travel, such as is too often the case today. With its Urban Travel Plan, Saint-Brieuc Armor Agglomeration affirms the desire to move from a system where the automobile is dominant to a sustainable system which is part of a complementarity between the different modes of transport."

[Red Squirrel]

I think the last paragraph Lee quoted sums it up rather well:

The general objective of this project is not to demonize the car, but to ensure that the use of it is neither exclusive nor an obstacle to the practice of other modes of travel, such as is too often the case today. With its Urban Travel Plan, Saint-Brieuc Armor Agglomeration affirms the desire to move from a system where the automobile is dominant to a sustainable system which is part of a complementarity between the different modes of transport.

...which is exactly what schemes like this one are trying to achieve. At present, the storage and use of private cars totally dominates all other forms of transport in most parts of most cities. It makes walking unpleasant, cycling dangerous, and buses slow and unreliable. We can't change this without affecting people's habits, but ultimately people will have more choices - including the option to use a private motor car, as long as they do so without expecting every other kind of road user to get out of their way.

[DaveHarries]

I think the last paragraph Lee quoted sums it up rather well: [....] It makes walking unpleasant, cycling dangerous, and buses slow and unreliable.

I don't wish to sound anti-cyclist (which I am not, except against those who don't ride in a sensible fashion) but I see examples on a near daily basis of cyclists making it dangerous for themselves (by pretend ignorance of red traffic signals, for example) and others: I was nearly sent flying into the road in Bicester on Tuesday by three cyclists belting along the pavement (which was not a shared one) on the road to the station while in the town on a work errand.

Pity there wasn't somebody around who could have fined all three.

Dave

[Red Squirrel]

It's a fair comment. I see often see cyclists running red lights, riding without lights or wearing headphones. I also see motorists speeding, answering phones and blocking pavements, and pedestrians who are perhaps a bit too interested in keeping up with twitter to know what's going on around them. I suppose the majority - sensible cyclists, motorists and pedestrians - don't attract our attention so much.

I'm not sure any of this has much relevance to the need to rebalance public space so that cars just get most of it, instead of nearly all of it, though.

[DaveHarries]

It's a fair comment. I see often see cyclists running red lights, riding without lights or wearing headphones. I also see motorists speeding, answering phones and blocking pavements, and pedestrians who are perhaps a bit too interested in keeping up with twitter to know what's going on around them. I suppose the majority - sensible cyclists, motorists and pedestrians - don't attract our attention so much.

I'm not sure any of this has much relevance to the need to rebalance public space so that cars just get most of it, instead of nearly all of it, though.

I know that motorists are not all saints when it comes to road use and those who break the rules by doing things such as answer their phones in a non-handsfree way deserve whatever punishment they may get: one of my colleagues got a half year ban earlier this year for doing it twice and lost her job too for good measure. I do see a few sensible cyclists but it seems to me that there are not enough of them.

Anyway back to the topic.....

Dave

[Bmblbzzz]

Hampton Lane is not much more than a Mercedes Sprinter van wide. What happens when Chris meets a van from Another Purveyor of Essential Groceries coming the other way? I have a vision of two vans in contrasting liveries, bumper to bumper, wheels smoking, each trying to force the other back!  It could be the most exciting thing to happen in that little lane for years!

[Chris from Nailsea]

Actually, it's not like that at all.  No, really. 

We're all professional grocery delivery van drivers, so in my experience, we do our best to help each other, in any such meeting.  I've pulled over (where possible), given the other driver an invitation to pull forward / squeeze past, or even reversed to the beginning of that road, if necessary.

Contrasting liveries really doesn't enter into it: we all want to deliver those necessaries to those needies. 

Chris from Waitrose Nailsea.